Brother, you speak of fair distribution but as I did earn these oats am I not free to do with them as I please...

Brother, you speak of fair distribution but as I did earn these oats am I not free to do with them as I please? What keeps you from getting your own oats?

Other urls found in this thread:

knowyourmeme.com/memes/brother-may-i-have-some-oats
youtube.com/watch?v=LHXrmYLPGBc
twitter.com/AnonBabble

why do I keep seeing this picture posted here?
I don't get it. It just looks comfy to me

It's a subtle jab at socialism

HAHA FUN NOT ALLOWED ENJOY YOUR BAN

Really made me think about why a handful of people are worth the combined labor of billions of other people

I didn't know it was physically possible for one man to create that much value all by himself

But now I see that some individuals simply work billions of times harder, and their wealth is gained completely in a fair manner and not stolen at all

And to try to take that unstolen wealth they've gained entirely by themselves without the help of any other person's labor would be unjust

Praise Capitalism, the greatest economic system known to man

Thanks OP, your Animal Farm meme really got my noggin joggin

how?
explain it to me. I am dumb

one pig has oats and the other doesnt. pig b wants some oats so he tries to get pig a to be socialist/communist and redistribute the oats evenly.

It's closer to "quotes by capitalists that accidentally justify socialism" than an actual jab at socialism.

Socialism isn't "take his money and give it to someone else", that's social democracy - i.e reformed capitalism.

The whole premise of socialism is that the workers would be the ones to extract the raw resources and refine them - i.e. they do all the actual work of preparing the oats (even if one CEO is buying raw resources from another, the other CEO used workers to extract them too, just underscoring that both CEOs are essentially parasiting off one another.)

But under capitalism the goods are then taken from the workers and in turn they're given a wage, while the capitalist extracts profit from selling the goods elsewhere, instead of letting the workers keep the full product of their labour.

I need to emphasise that at each stage "But the capitalist gave them the means to do X!" is essentially meaningless, as it keeps looping around. The CEO gave them the farming equipment, for example, but then who actually assembled it? The CEO by hand? ha no, more workers did that. (And realistically speaking, most of the negotiation and purchasing was also done by middle management - most CEOs are just employees too, strictly speaking it's shareholders who parasite off the value the most. CEOs are just overpaid in LTV terms.)

Yada yada yada. I'm not a socialist so I don't give a fuck, but that's how it works. I'm sure I've left something out here, but that's the gist of it.

>ywn have a caring brother who makes sure you have enough oats to keep from starving

>Yada yada yada. I'm not a socialist so I don't give a fuck, but that's how it works

suuuuuuuuuure....

>spending this much effort being wrong

When I say "that's how it works" I'm saying that it's what socialists believe, as opposed to how it works out in practice.

If you don't know anything about what those you oppose believe, you're not going to find any effective avenues of attack.

>Surely the Socialists will care if I bring down a corrupt corporate shill! We all know they love her defence of private ownership of the means of production with slightly higher state revenues!

I hate this meme

even the bognadoff meme is better

Considering those individuals that are worth a fuckload usually had some part in creating a massive company that likely has a rather large impact on your life while the billions of poorest people in the world are all 3rd worlders who have probably done nothing with their lives other than find a means to fill their stomach, I would say yes, their wealth is fine for them to have. This world is not zero-sum and often people working for their own benefit tend to benefit others as well.

>workers should keep raw material rather than have someone ship it off to be made into products

I guess you would rather have to build every appliance you have by hand, huh retard?

>This nigger never read Animal Farm

It's already implied that the workers autonomously agree to ship it off to those who'd turn it into products, and would in turn be rewarded with those products.

Look pal, it reduces to this: if I have an acre of land and use it to grow potatoes (expending a lot of physical labour in the process), do you believe I have the right to sell my potatoes for my own price, or not? Socialists would claim that some or all of my potatoes ought to go to the State (because that is supposedly "fair"), which would greatly discourage me from growing them again next year.

I should mention that I do actually own an acre of land that was used for growing potatoes in the recent past, so this isn't an abstract question for me.

that image has nothing to do with animal farm
knowyourmeme.com/memes/brother-may-i-have-some-oats

how did you earn those oats
the farmer literally just gave them to you for existing

>Socialists would claim that some or all of my potatoes ought to go to the State
No they wouldn't.
Socialists would say if you grew them by your hand, they're yours.

The problems come when you hire someone else to grow potatoes: Then they're his, and you don't have the right to take them and sell them.

>social democracy
>reformed capitalism

ECONOMICS BTFO

Are pigs the ones with the curly penises, or are those ducks?

Pigs have cork screws, ducks have whacky dicks as the females have plenty of false holes in their cloaca.

Can someone explain this political compass to me?

WTFs with the random line through the word oats O.o
otherwise legend

...

this and THE DELEGATES DAHNALD are the 2 dumbest memes of all time. Trust me, i'm a meme historian

So you're saying that Socialism completely abhors the idea of contracts, division of labour and labour specialisation, and that it then reasonably leads to nothing more than subsistence farming society?

Too bad it never works like that

>Socialists would say if you grew them by your > hand, they're yours. The problems come when you hire someone else to grow potatoes: Then they're his

That would come as a surprise to the Soviet peasants in the 1930s forced at gunpoint to yield up the produce of their own farms in the name of socialism. Most rad-Left ideologies think that the idea of having any private property in the first place, let along privately-held land, is a right-wing heresy.

Who owns the means of production in Venezuela?

It's the workers, right? The workers, not the state. Because socialism is, after all, the worker ownership of said means.

...

>division of labour and labour specialisation
You can have this without someone extracting profit at intermediate stages.

Well, yeah.

You could at the very least have picked farmers in the 20s when Lenin was around. Stalin was an unrepentant bastard, to any ideology except self-aggrandisement as a broad-shouldered black fellow with a penis is to a woman simply because he cloaked himself in a dress.

The English language is the real bastard here. (Because it makes a distinction between "Socialism" and Self-defining socialists difficult), though on the whole the USSR was indefensible. (It's worth remembering that China is still notionally "Socialism with Chinese characteristics", which in translation is a variant on capitalism, hence their present success.)

Anyway, it's also worth remembering that most rad-left types make the distinction between personal and private property. A car that you drive around is personal property, a car that you rent to others is private property. It's an interesting distinction that preserves the ability to own personal effects while restricting "exploitation" of other's labour.

shut up you pseudo-intellectual newfag its just a dank maymay

Only if I may have some of your oats.

Brother.

>You could at the very least have picked farmers in the 20s when Lenin was around. Stalin was an unrepentant bastard

Lenin was an unrepentant bastard too (and caused the deaths of over a million people), but he didn't live long enough to achieve Stalin's infamy.

>it's also worth remembering that most rad-left types make the distinction between personal and private property

The problem is that they believe they're the ones who get to make this (entirely arbitrary and subjective) distinction, whereas in reality they have no right to determine it at all.

Lenin at least lead a revolution, albeit one he took awry.
(Though he also gave us the NEP, which was self-identified state capitalism.)

>whereas in reality they have no right to determine it at all
They have about as much right as everyone else does to make other distinctions, such as property ownership on the whole. In practice it's only going to come about if others agree to it.

You've got mutualist ideas on property as well, for example (it's your property only if you're using it) which seem a novel distinction, albeit one I've not read up on too much.

In practice property rights are quite arbitrary even under the present system. Hence why someone in - if i remember right - denmark was punished for stealing virtual property in Runescape, while many other countries would laugh, or say the property was ultimately that of the game creators with the user only experiencing licences access.

HOLY KEK.
>Be Czar Nicholas.
>Don't give your soldiers guns lmao.
>Russians getting their ass whipped aside from the Brusilov offensive, but that shit is also getting old.
>Millions of soldiers are dead.
>Take control of armies lmao.
>People starving and the aristocracy living a-ok.
>Russia already wracked from political instability before hand.
It's almost as if a civil war was going to kill folks. Who knew.

Communists did literally the exact same thing in WW2. Even the part about the aristocrats(aka the party members) living large while people starved.

So capitalist businesses are really just small scale socialist endeavors?

youtube.com/watch?v=LHXrmYLPGBc

>It's almost as if a civil war was going to kill folks. Who knew.
Are you glibly downplaying the crimes of marxism?

Worker co-operatives would be in a limited sense. In practice they're probably paying out to a capitalist somewhere (i.e. most co-operative supermarkets probably buy from non co-op businesses as a matter of practicality.) but if you had enough of them, that'd presumably be a basic model for a socialist society.

Though there is the distinction between the petit-bourgeois and the proper bourgeois. petit-bourgeois still have to labour to work, but also extract some profit from others (the general example being a small plumber who goes out to do plumbing himself, but also has employees of his own.)